CHUNI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried. convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial Court The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were upheld by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner came up in revision in this Court. The same was admitted by M.M. Punchhi, J., vide his order dated 20th November, 1981.

(2.) THE petitioner is not a previous convict. He has been facing the trial since long and has been on bail under the orders of this Court since November, 1981 According to the report of the Public Analyst, milk solids not fat in the sample were found to be 7.9. per cent as against 8. 5 per. cent prescribed under the law and there was no shortage of milk fats. I think there is no point in sending the petitioner to jail at this stage. I feel the awarding of the minimum sentence prescribed by the law should be dispensed with in this case. Although in view of section 20 -AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act now the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to the petitioner, but the offence in this case was committed long time back when the Courts had the power in appropriate cases to release the offenders on probation. Consequently I suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner and order that he be released on probation on his furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bond in the sum of three thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to a pear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. The fine imposed on the petitioner shall be paid to the State as litigation expenses. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.